Will Crack-Cocaine Sentencing Reform Help Current Cons?

Crack I dont smoke nor sell it. But I dont think that a person who sells crack is one hundred times the criminal a person who sells cocaine or pot for is for that matter. In this article the author describes the current movement in the house and senate to abolish the 100-to-1 ratio rule -which makes 1gram of crack equal to 100 grams of cocaine- for crack possession compared to cocaine possession and distribution. This ratio is not only unfair and seemingly unconstitional it is in accordance with mandatory sentencing guidelines which the feds handed down. So good there is movement towards abolish a seemingly cruel punishment.

The problem is that their is actually doubt wether the people presently incarcerated will be effected by a ruling to abolish the 100-to-1 rule and mandatory sentencing guidlines they were put away under. The house and senate are being hush hush on weater the ruling will be retroactive. Now why would a ruling that abolished a law for being unethical in terms of constitional law not be retroactive. Why would the prisoners put away under this system not be relaesed or at the very least be afforded a new trial. Why because the government does not want to face law suits that releasing these individuals, would be like admitting to. I say the feds made a mistake and they should own up to it. They handed down unfair mandatory sentences, taking a judge and jury’s opinon out of the equation. I see it as a highly unethical move on the feds part, drawing out this process of abolishing such guidelines and even considering the option of not making this revaluation and ruling retroactive which would release so many individuals who have been imprisoned for way to long. What do yall think about mandatory sentencing, retroactivity or the crack 100-to-1 ratio?